Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
They are required to believe.
“If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
No argument there.
“FWIW, I think you can toss Gnosticism in with them too. The Gnostic’s believed there was an “elite” group that possessed the “secret truths” to salvation that only they could really understand. That sounds like the magisterium and Pope.”
Sounds like? Naw. Only if the batteries in your hearing aid are running down.
No secret truths. To the contrary. Every document, everything about the Church and the Faith is open to all. We permit all the believers and unbelievers alike to read the Word of God and the Catechism and everything else about the Faith. It’s those that make it up as they go along that it’s hard to keep up with.
Roast leg of lamb. The best lamb I’ve ever had in the world is fresh Iowa lamb.
INGREDIENTS:
Leg of lamb
kosher salt
pepper
2 garlic heads, cloves skinned and sliced thin
PREPARATION:
Warm to room temperature, and rinse under cold water. Place fat side up. Make slits through fat into meat with sharp paring knife. Insert garlic slices completely under fat to keep from burning. Place in roasting pan and sprinkle liberally with kosher salt.
Roast in a 500 degree oven for 50 minutes, turn down to 350 for another 25 minutes or so until golden brown. Remember to baste every 20 minutes with pan drippings. For the last 30 minutes, potatoes, carrots or garlic heads well slicked with pan drippings can be roasted as well. Keep them well basted too.
Let sit for about 15 minutes before slicing.
In our own ways, we do agree that man is to glorify God.
But if man doesn’t do it by his own free will, isn’t that exactly like a bunch of windup toys clapping their hands?
But in the parable, the father wasn’t looking at any distance, never mind far off.
lol. You know I have never eaten lamb
I assume you're speaking only for yourself, because as for me, I see every minute of every day filled with the truth of God's absolute predestination of all things for His glory and the welfare of His children.
Thank God.
I notice your rebuttals never address Romans 9:11 or Acts 13:48. Or this one...
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." -- Psalm 65:4
I doubt nothing of Christ nor of His abilities.
We disagree on the role and the scope of man’s actions and abilities. I am unable to differentiate between freedom of the animals in the field and the Reformed view of the freedom of men.
That is false. This lie does not become true just because you keep repeating it.
Paul only reiterates what Christ taught and what we believe.
And in reality, Christ was far less egalitarian than any of the Apostles, including Paul.
"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." -- John 17:9
Christ knows His own and He will lose none of them.
Amen!!!
If I had any say I would frogmarch them through life. Get the law degree. Marry that girl. Have this many kids. Live in this location.
Of course, I'm not omnipotent, omniscience, or omnipresent.
Well, I didn't write the parable; Jesus did.
As 1000s said, keep trying.
WHAT!?! When did they open up the Vatican library to you and me and permit us to actually read from the Vaticanus? Entire sections of the Vatican Library are locked and sealed from any "outsiders."
And certainly the examples of the RCC insisting that a man's sins only can be forgiven by a priestly intercession; and the RCC insisting that salvation is found only through the eucharist; and the RCC insisting that membership in the RCC is necessary to be redeemed by Christ all stand as testament to its peculiar, anti-Scriptural exclusivity.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
1 John 2:
1
My children, 1 I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
3
The way we may be sure 2 that we know him is to keep his command ments.
4
Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5
But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6
whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
I think that this bears repeating:
1
My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
You don’t know what you’re missing (drool drool).
And it’s so easy and tastes so good. Just make sure that you get good fresh lamb and that it’s butchered properly with the fell removed. It’s less expensive than a good roast of beef or a crown roast of pork and tastes better.
Head on over to the Vatican’s website, take a look and then we’ll talk.
Not really. Anyone who experiences free will choices - and doesn't think they're an illusion.
I notice your rebuttals never address
In case I haven't made it clear by now, my rebuttal to TULIP proof texts is the whole of the Gospel. It's moot if TULIP is true, pertinent if TULIP is false.
Thanks for your reply. [ By the way I choose to stay up late last night - bad choice. :) ]
And this passage is said about and to the Apostles who were gathered in the room. Here, Jesus is preparing them for their mission to the world.
Pertinent to nothing, I can’t say the word “moot” without thinking of this scene from “Friends”:
Joey: All right, Rach. The big question is, “does he like you?” All right? Because if he doesn’t like you, this is all a moo point.
Rachel: Huh. A moo point?
Joey: Yeah, it’s like a cow’s opinion. It just doesn’t matter. It’s moo.
We don’t rebut Rom 9:11 because there’s nothing to rebut. We understand and agree with it.
Rom 9:
9
For this is the wording of the promise, “About this time I shall return and Sarah will have a son.”
10
And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac 4 —
11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call—she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.”
God does select people to serve His purpose. We never deny it.
Acts 13:
48
The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who were destined for eternal life came to believe,
49
and the word of the Lord continued to spread through the whole region.
We agree on this, too. Where we differ is in the philosophy of double predestination versus single.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.